AuthorTopic: How Important Are My LSAT Scores? (Read 12790 times)

The LSAT is used to weed out the candidates. For example: If you score a 150 and apply to Cornell or Lewis and Clark your application will be tossed in a pile and not even reviewed. Therefore, the LSAT is a crucial factor

"Also, you have a neurological condition that precludes you from performing in pressure situations. And you're considering law school. Do I need to explain the 8 hundred billion gajillion reasons that this is a bad idea?"

There we go. That's a fair response. Clearly, you people are capable of forming solid arguments, yet you assume that I am trying to "stroke my ego" by challenging your logic or by presenting my accomplishments aside from a potentially poor LSAT score for the purpose of promoting my perceived superiority. We are all such fools...

1. You're clearly very bright and accomplished. 2. The LSAT probably constitutes most of your law school application, for good or ill. LSAT + UG GPA constitutes the majority of your application, and the LSAT is worth significantly more than GPA.3. Yes, your Masters will help somewhat, just like many other soft factors will. However, it's not weighed as heavily as LSAT or UG GPA. 4. Are you sure you want to go to law school? Seems like you have marketable skills in other areas. 5. The LSAT is learnable. Study hard for it, and consider seeking accomodations if necessary.

Also, why should I take your opinion over the dissenting opinion of individuals who are now professors, been to law school or have been employed by law firms for several years?

the analysis seems to be "i'm going to ask a question on a pre-law board, and if i get answers i already agree with, they are correct; but if i get answers i disagree with, why should i believe them anyway since lawyers and professors have already told me differently."

posting such a question AFTER speaking with lawyers and professors indicates that the op did not trust their responses to begin with; otherwise why attempt to validate it? further, what is the possible value for the op in arguing with us when our opinions conflict with such a learned panel? surely we must be wrong, and he must now teach us the error of our ways.

obviously, the op returned to the conversation after he declared it "over." this indicates either a lack of self-discipline; or that this entire "question" was merely an attempt to justify his perceived lsat failures. "well, i may have an average lsat, but it doesnt matter because i went to a prestigious masters program!" again, what is the point of arguing with us when others who know better have already told him differently, if not to try to make himself look better -- at least in his own eyes?

(there also remains the distinct possibility that the op could also just be a poor troll with a weak flame).

the op has demanded evidence to support our contentions, yet has presented no evidence of his own that our arguments lack validity, other than hearsay "professors and lawyers have told me i'm right."

therefore, under this analysis, the logical conclusion is that the op is a feminine hygiene product.